Jordan v. Holzheimer
District Court, D. Alaska
1Opinion of the Court
DOMEN, District Judge.
In view of the grounds on which defendant’s motion is based, we deem the objections raised by plaintiff not well taken. The first objection is contrary'to law; the second is immaterial; the third is not controlling, if, indeed, it is material; and the fourth is of .doubtful materiality, and based upon debatable facts.
We say that the plaintiff’s third objection is not controlling, for the reason that, while he had a right at his option to bring this action in any one of the four divisions of Alaska, this right was subject to the statutory privilege of the defendant to…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Mitchell v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
- Shelton v. TiffinSupreme Court of the United States · 1848
- Livingston & Gilchrist v. Maryland InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1813
- Wood v. FitzgeraldOregon Supreme Court · 1870
- Jacobson v. HosmerMichigan Supreme Court · 1889
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.